POCSO Act | Victim Protection and Expedited Trial Mandate : MP HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while permitting withdrawal of a bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, issued critical directives for victim protection and expedited trial in a case involving offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The order underscores the judiciary's proactive role in ensuring compliance with statutory mandates for vulnerable witnesses, particularly child victims, while balancing procedural rights of the accused.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Kanha, sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 118/2026, registered at Police Station Betma, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The case involved grave offences punishable under:

• Sections 64, 64(1), 65(1), and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
• Sections 3/4, 5L/6, and 5(J)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

Procedural History

• Date of Offence Registration: Crime No. 118/2026 was registered at Police Station Betma, Indore.
• 14.07.2026: The applicant filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 28276 of 2026 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.
• 14.07.2026: During arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for withdrawal of the bail application, seeking liberty to renew the prayer after recording the victim's statement.
• 14.07.2026: The High Court dismissed the MCRC as withdrawn, granting the requested liberty.

Relief Sought

The applicant initially sought bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, but withdrew the application with liberty to refile after the victim's statement was recorded. No substantive relief was granted or denied in this order.

The Legal Issue

The primary legal question addressed was whether the court could issue ancillary directives for victim protection and expedited trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012 while permitting withdrawal of a bail application, even in the absence of a substantive bail adjudication.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The applicant's counsel argued for withdrawal of the bail application, seeking liberty to renew the prayer after the victim's statement was recorded. This implied an acknowledgment of the procedural complexities involved in bail adjudication in POCSO cases, particularly where victim testimony is critical.

For the State

The State, represented by the Government Advocate (GA), did not oppose the withdrawal. However, the court proactively addressed the need for victim protection and expedited trial, independent of the bail application's outcome.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court, while dismissing the bail application as withdrawn, emphasized the statutory obligations under the POCSO Act, 2012 and the BNSS, 2023. The court's analysis focused on:

1. Expedited Trial Mandate: The court directed the trial court to proceed "as per the mandate of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012", which requires recording the testimony of witnesses, particularly child victims, "at the earliest possible ways". This underscores the legislative intent to minimize trauma to child victims by ensuring swift justice.

2. Victim Protection and Transport: The court explicitly directed the Police Station Betma to:

   • Ensure the victim's presence for recording her statement.
   • Provide transport facility to the victim.
   • Ensure the victim's protection during the trial process.

   These directives align with Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, which mandates that the trial be completed within one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.

3. Coordination Between Agencies: The court directed the Public Prosecutor attached to the Additional Sessions Court, Depalpur, to coordinate with the In-charge of Police Station Betma to ensure the presence and protection of the victim and other witnesses. This highlights the judiciary's role in bridging gaps between investigative and prosecutorial agencies to safeguard vulnerable witnesses.

4. Compliance and Reporting: The court ordered that a copy of the order be forwarded to:

   • The concerned trial court.
   • The In-charge of Police Station Betma.
   • The Special Public Prosecutor attached to the Additional Sessions Court, Depalpur.

   This ensures accountability and compliance with the directives issued.

"The trial Court is directed to proceed in the case as per the mandate of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and record the testimony of witnesses at the earliest possible ways. Child victim has to be provided the transport facility and the Police Station- Betma, District- Indore (MP) is directed to ensure the presence of the victim for recording her statement under protection and also provided the transport facility on the next date fixed by the trial Court."

The Verdict

The court dismissed the bail application (MCRC No. 28276 of 2026) as withdrawn, granting the applicant liberty to renew the prayer after the victim's statement was recorded. While no substantive relief was granted or denied, the court issued the following operative directions:

1. Expedited Trial: The trial court was directed to proceed under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and record the testimony of witnesses at the earliest possible opportunity.
2. Victim Transport and Protection: Police Station Betma was directed to ensure the victim's presence for recording her statement and provide transport facility and protection.
3. Coordination: The Public Prosecutor attached to the Additional Sessions Court, Depalpur, was directed to coordinate with Police Station Betma to ensure compliance with the above directives.
4. Compliance Timeline: The order was to be forwarded to the concerned authorities for immediate compliance, though no specific deadline was set.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Mandatory Compliance with POCSO Act Directives

• Expedited Trial: Courts must ensure trials under the POCSO Act are completed within the statutory timeline of one year from taking cognizance, as mandated by Section 35(2). This order reinforces the judiciary's role in monitoring compliance with this timeline.
• Victim-Centric Approach: The court's emphasis on providing transport and protection to the victim underscores the victim-centric nature of the POCSO Act. Practitioners must ensure that trial courts and investigative agencies adhere to these protections, even in procedural matters like bail withdrawals.

Coordination Between Judicial and Investigative Agencies

• The court's direction to the Public Prosecutor to coordinate with the police highlights the need for inter-agency collaboration in POCSO cases. This serves as a precedent for ensuring that victim protection measures are not just judicial directives but are actively implemented by all stakeholders.
• Practical Takeaway: Lawyers representing victims in POCSO cases should insist on similar directives in every procedural order, even if the primary relief (e.g., bail) is not adjudicated.

Procedural Flexibility in Bail Applications

• The court permitted withdrawal of the bail application with liberty to renew, demonstrating procedural flexibility in cases involving vulnerable witnesses. This allows the accused to strategize their defence while ensuring the victim's testimony is recorded without delay.
• Practical Takeaway: Defence counsel in POCSO cases may consider withdrawing bail applications temporarily to allow for victim testimony, particularly where the victim's statement is critical to the case's outcome.

Judicial Oversight Beyond Substantive Relief

• This order illustrates that courts can issue ancillary directives for victim protection and expedited trial even in procedural matters like bail withdrawals. Such orders serve as judicial oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with statutory mandates.
• Practical Takeaway: Prosecutors and victim advocates should request similar directives in every POCSO case, regardless of the primary relief sought, to ensure holistic protection of the victim's rights.